Thanks to a customary pussy pass, Lucie Slater’s truly savage glassing attack on then boyfriend Scott Aitken went legally unpunished two and a half years ago. It is therefore unsurprising that fellow Englishwoman Sarah McKenzie-Ayres, the subject of my recent article, also walked free from court this year for a similar attack on a man. Slater is just one of many excuses that help give other women their own excuse to maim and disfigure the men who anger them.
Slater had found Aitken exchanging messages with another woman and, in a fit of “understandable” female jealousy, lashed out at him with a glass. As the pictures prove, the results for Aitken were beyond horrific. And, rubbing further salt into his blood-churning facial injuries, the judiciary treated Aitken’s communication with the second woman as some sort of provocation you would normally expect in the most extreme self-defense cases.
The message of both the Slater and McKenzie-Ayres cases is obvious: male victims do not matter in criminal sentencing. Hit a woman, without evening leaving a bruise, and expect serious incarceration or GPS tracking. But if you maim a man to the point of him requiring corrective surgery and metal plates, the judge will declare your de facto innocence as a woman by refusing to send you to jail.
“Rehabilitating” her image through charity grandstanding
Soon after the sentencing, desperate to salvage her reputation, Lucie Slater engaged in charity fundraising online for diabetes. In a twist that shocked me about as much as the sun rising each day, her father had died from a serious version of the same disease a month or so after she received her complimentary pussy pass.
Notwithstanding that a 45-year-old man losing his life in such circumstances is tragic, the very convenient dovetailing Slater engaged in with her fundraising raises serious questions about her genuineness. Amidst all the justified vitriol being directed at both her and the shambolic decision not to imprison her, she needed a superficial outlet to show just how “sweet” and “kind” she was. Yet, if she really cared about her father, why not care enough to prevent publicly humiliating him with the glassing of Aitken and the resultant court case?
Any “daddy’s girl” who has a father with diabetes should realize that significant stress, such as having your daughter plastered across the media even if she didn’t get deserved jail time, is a catalyst for sudden and premature death. Serious stress combines with serious diabetes like flying an airplane under the influence of alcohol.
Any considerate daughter would act in accordance with this risk. Lucie Slater did not. The fundraising may have convinced those still stupid enough to associate with her that she was a good person, but the record of her brutality against Aitken proves otherwise. A good daughter does not do to someone what she did to her then boyfriend. Her father dying so soon after the court case was no accident.
Ruthless naming and shaming is required
It is our obligation to give women like Lucie Slater a lifetime of pariah status. It is not enough for us, like I did with my Sarah McKenzie-Ayres article, to focus only on what happened this week or last month. Although ROK was only commencing as an online presence when Lucie Slater got her official vaginal pardon, we must revisit or address for the first time incidents that we may have missed or glossed over.
As a community, we demonstrate, investigate and prove patterns of behavior that are undermining, destroying, and defecating on society. The repeated pussy passes handed out to violent, unrepentant and purely sadistic women is a front and center issue in this struggle of ours.
In the UK, one female politician, the thankfully now isolated Helen Grant, called for the virtual elimination of women’s prisons in Britain and sensationally asserted that it is society that makes women offend. Women like Slater and McKenzie-Ayres evidently have many allies, even if most of them are not as forthcoming and open as Grant. They are invariably more oblique and stealthy in the methods they employ to justify the appalling behavior of women ushered away from their rightful home in a penitentiary.
Systematic and organised anger is the best approach to take in dealing with these cases. Stand up to the behavior and the constant judicial indulgence it receives, connect the dots between countless examples of feminist under-sentencing for criminally-inclined women, and give others the opportunity to participate in the cause.
With elements of the mainstream media already pillorying the passes given to such women, we are simply adding to the fire of retribution.